[C3] Coin Brainstorming / Ideas / Proposals thread

[🏰 TradeFortress 🏰]

Idea: Initial coin release is done through the equivalent of set difficulty mining - generate processing intensive hashes, if the first X bits are all zeroes AND that coin isn't already made then you just created a coin.

Example:

de345cf32de1ab9: no coin
96f7410e7925cc5: no coin
000000ac9531cee: coin
0000001ab98f9dac: coin
[...]
000000ac9531cee: no coin (already made)

Can just use TX hash for that. If TX hash starts with X 0 bits, AND it has no inputs, AND it has only one 1 coin output, AND first x bits of the TX hash is unique, then it passes the successful create coin check.

Those "create coin" TXes would be broadcasted and would be confirmed after being included in the blockchain. The blockchain is purely generated by Proof of Stake. Proof of Stake mining just earns transaction fees (which are required to send transactions, so the create coin TXes would have to include a fee that the PoS finds acceptable)

Initially the network would be seeded via a genesis block that gives the seed PoS node 0.5% of the total monetary supply.

Advantages:

* No mining pools needed! Each PoS block is expected to hold multiple create coin TXes with PoW.
* Rate of new blocks not tied to hashpower vs difficulty.
* Can't be 51% attacked unless you own more than 51% of all coins in existence
* No "mass block time" at the start of the coin's life, difficulty goes from 1 to 4 to 16 to 64 because that's the max jump..
* Energy efficient after all the monetary supply would have being created
* Scales with more hashpowers which can be somewhat linked to new users
* Limit on max amount of coins.

[🏰 TradeFortress 🏰]

And I like going with less amount of total coins versus bitcoin too. There's the psychological effect of something being worth more than a dollar (like bitcoin has seen), or an exchange rate of 0.01 versus 0.001 even through there's 10x as many coins.

[FuzzyBear]

just adding my thoughts from another post in what I want to see done with a new coin / blockchain that i posted on another thread

Now if a coin was launched which was NOT designed to be a currency, but rather allowed you to upload files to the blockchain with a cap on the size of file to stop blockchain bloating and the cap was set that people would only upload .torrent files to it so there was a public network record of all the torrents available across all networks and you could destroy the coins in the process in uploading a torrent to the chain then I would be very interested in pointing my hashing power at this

[DarkHyudrA]

Make it have limited number of coins, but make it a high number, even higher compared of Litecoin's limit, this way transaction fees wouldn't cost much in theory.
Bitcoin's deflation is a kind of problem to be world accepted, Bitcoin is getting more a store of value and less useful for small transactions.

[chriswen]

Yes, a PoS of 2% would be manageable.  And i helps to process tx.

[Limie]

All ideas welcome eh? Let me know what you think of this concept: I have been thinking about this for a while now and it seems I have found the place to bring it up...I have been thinking about about a coin that is created for the non-computer programer/developer because lets face it if the cryprocurrencies are going to work and fix this current shit job of economy then they have to be understandable to the common Joe-plummer if you will. So I will post here that CPU mining is by far the easiest way to mine IMHO, so if you want your coin to be mainstream and appeal to mass the the cpu mining is the way to go. However I was pondering a way to create coins based on Real life events to spark interest on more of a mass scale. Historians, Librarians, teachers.  A way to encourage people to bring factual information to the internet. In this way we could change the face of mass media and create a currency based in Real Life, not that bitcoin is not real by any means! It is just difficult for the non-programer/developer to understand. We could correlate events to algorithms to authenticate events...AuthentiCoin!

[jubalix]

I have set your mind on fire TF

[jubalix]

This thread is for open discussion of the Community Cryptocurrency Foundation's coin.

Ideas and proposals that are improvements or localized changes can be more easily implemented and tested, versus complete overhauls. Please keep this in mind when suggesting & discussing changes.

Everyone is welcome, this coin would be decided upon by community consensus.

Links
Foundation topic

Fast really fast

many low value block pay out

scrypt mine

low lotal number

catchy name

[jubalix]

Personally, I want to focus on more lightweight - allow everyone to download the blockchain. Less dust and unspendable outputs.

Such as:
Reduce the divisibility to 0.0001 units instead of 0.00000001. This reduces the size of transactions by a small amount, as it is stored as an integer in each transaction, but also makes creating dust and unspendable outputs impossible

Trimming prevBlockHash and merkleRootHash to the first 192 bits. This should still provide adequate security, while reducing the size of block headers.

Full ECC public key-recovery, and Ed25519.

Should we keep the base58 encoding system? Addresses are hardly said out loud. I think we should still remove characters which look the same or similar (eg I and l), but perhaps symbols like !, #, &, *, <, >, . , . can be added.

How fast should blocks be, while balancing storage space with less variance?

no the less divisible is not so good

from day one you wnat built in

nBit (nanobit)
uBit (micro bit)
mBit (millibit)
Bit (whole bit)

this give a clear road map and terms of where you see things going

and people still feel like they have a whole thing when the buy a mBit

[strunberg]

Should we make it impossible to mine with CPU's?

I don't like the idea of mining for the sake of mining.
1. It CPU wastes energy as they're immediately outdated with alt coins when they're released..
2.It also make's it harder to mine,for those who want to mine with a single modest GPU,without investing thousands on quickly outdated hardware.

Within a year or so, ASICs will be released.
 After a short while it will be cheaper to invest and mine with a modest ASIC than a modest GPU.

[sangaman]

Personally, I want to focus on more lightweight - allow everyone to download the blockchain. Less dust and unspendable outputs.

Such as:
Reduce the divisibility to 0.0001 units instead of 0.00000001. This reduces the size of transactions by a small amount, as it is stored as an integer in each transaction, but also makes creating dust and unspendable outputs impossible

Trimming prevBlockHash and merkleRootHash to the first 192 bits. This should still provide adequate security, while reducing the size of block headers.

Full ECC public key-recovery, and Ed25519.

Should we keep the base58 encoding system? Addresses are hardly said out loud. I think we should still remove characters which look the same or similar (eg I and l), but perhaps symbols like !, #, &, *, <, >, . , . can be added.

How fast should blocks be, while balancing storage space with less variance?

I like these ideas, dust and microtransactions are unnecessary and burdensome I think.

However, I think it's possible to reduce dust and unspendable outputs without reducing divisibility. I think you could still have divisibility to 8 digits (or thereabouts) but then enforce a rule that a transaction can't have outputs smaller than .0001 (or thereabouts).

[jubalix]

Personally, I want to focus on more lightweight - allow everyone to download the blockchain. Less dust and unspendable outputs.

Such as:
Reduce the divisibility to 0.0001 units instead of 0.00000001. This reduces the size of transactions by a small amount, as it is stored as an integer in each transaction, but also makes creating dust and unspendable outputs impossible

Trimming prevBlockHash and merkleRootHash to the first 192 bits. This should still provide adequate security, while reducing the size of block headers.

Full ECC public key-recovery, and Ed25519.

Should we keep the base58 encoding system? Addresses are hardly said out loud. I think we should still remove characters which look the same or similar (eg I and l), but perhaps symbols like !, #, &, *, <, >, . , . can be added.

How fast should blocks be, while balancing storage space with less variance?

I like these ideas, dust and microtransactions are unnecessary and burdensome I think.


YES WEIGHTED MIN TRANSACTION TO STOP DUST ALSO READ

http://forum.litecoin.net/index.php/topic,1755.0.html

for a different take...a high value chain platinum to BTC gold...would also get rid of dust!!!! and be light

[🏰 TradeFortress 🏰]

Make it have limited number of coins, but make it a high number, even higher compared of Litecoin's limit, this way transaction fees wouldn't cost much in theory.
Bitcoin's deflation is a kind of problem to be world accepted, Bitcoin is getting more a store of value and less useful for small transactions.

That is silly, there are electricity costs. Look at LTC's TX fees vs btc.

[🏰 TradeFortress 🏰]

Should we make it impossible to mine with CPU's?

I don't like the idea of mining for the sake of mining.
1. It CPU wastes energy as they're immediately outdated with alt coins when they're released..
2.It also make's it harder to mine,for those who want to mine with a single modest GPU,without investing thousands on quickly outdated hardware.

Within a year or so, ASICs will be released.
 After a short while it will be cheaper to invest and mine with a modest ASIC than a modest GPU.

How can we make it impossible to mine with CPUs?

[🏰 TradeFortress 🏰]

Just throwing 0.02 worth of thoughts in as its already over my head:

Merged mining gives access to the worlds most powerful security system and it seems foolish not to use it. (voted)

Not sure if multiple hashing methods could work but it would allow seamless switching to different systems should a problem show up with ASIC's.

Bitcoin is a commodity in its own right and it would make sense to use it as backing for alt curencies, ie. putting 1 BTC into the alt currency creates 1000 alt coins to be used with that system and they can be turned back into BTC at any time (removing them from the alt currency).

Speed is vital, point of sale transactions are the missing link atm.

Merged mining: Could only work if we use SHA256. Also, we can use pure PoS for security with PoW for coin generation (but not block generation).

Bitcoin <-> altcoin: Would not work with centralization.

[🏰 TradeFortress 🏰]

However, I think it's possible to reduce dust and unspendable outputs without reducing divisibility. I think you could still have divisibility to 8 digits (or thereabouts) but then enforce a rule that a transaction can't have outputs smaller than .0001 (or thereabouts).

This rule has no performance or storage benefit, and will case a hard fork in case we want to allow spending less than 0.0001 in the future.

Perhaps 4 digits is too small - maybe 5 or 6?

[Joe_Bauers]

I've had an idea floating around for a while, either for Bitcoin, or an alt coin, in which a Lamport one-time signature scheme is incorporated into the flow, which would (should) make the coin future proof.

My thoughts so far from the other thead.

[🏰 TradeFortress 🏰]

Lamport signatures are an interesting idea to make the coin "quantum-proof". Use it for generating and signing addresses?

[jubalix]

Lamport signatures are an interesting idea to make the coin "quantum-proof". Use it for generating and signing addresses?

Yes a quantum proof system would be a vast improvement.

Also make some sort system that charges for something like Satoshi dice to it can't get a free ride.

[Uest3]

Easy access to the new coin for all computers, something like equal share, the right to coins for person/pc, more people owning coins, more trades, more pressure for the market to adopt it.
After the experience with the bitcoin, equal share means a true mania to get rich for the little guy and a true mania from Pakistan to Chile, from Indonesia to Spain is necessary for the new coin to rise to the top.

Coins for the masses.

Keep in mind, Wordpress wasn't the first CMS but it's the most popular today.

Just some ideas, maybe I'm wrong.

An article on Bloomberg about the weakness of the bitcoin in comparision with state money

It's a remarkable success, but it won't be the future of money.  Even putting aside security problems -- not surprisingly, a digital currency is a favorite target of hackers -- there’s the potential that Bitcoin will turn from a way of doing anonymous, simple digital transactions and into a speculative-asset investment item, especially if it continues to soar in price. That might promote hoarding of Bitcoins by early adopters and choke off the marketplace. Although transactions haven’t fallen off a cliff yet, a currency whose value is distinctly bubble-tastic is not something that even digital libertarians will readily spend.

Here’s where a state could easily step in by just … printing more money, so that economic activity is not choked off by scarcity or hoarding.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-04-04/sorry-libertarians-history-shows-bitcoin-isn-t-the-future.html